So, since we have the stat page and since I have the Christmas present, I thought that while we wait for private matches we can organize a sort of surprise tournament. Actually unavoidable!

This tournament relies heavily on my discipline so I will try to be disciplined enough given the circumstances.

The scores will be computed according to the following procedure(ideas are welcomed):- See post #120.

The difference is that the elo, as checked in another thread (see ELO computational changes) is quite good predicting the actual strength of a player (actually I should do another check excluding the 5.2 resolution engine, since then rock/paper/scissor is less frequent), while a tournament may reward a player that was better in a certain timeframe in direct fights and not just gather points from the playerbase. Nevertheless one is "qualified" in the tournament through the score (or elo) in game.

Hopefully if the results are interesting and I still have the data I will do the unavoidable tournaments every week or so.

Info in the thread and on the wiki.

Hall of fame- earlier tournaments cannot be done, although I have the data from nov 2016, because I miss consistent screenshots that let me see the situation of the top players and define a cutoff. I could derive this from the data but it is too tedious.

Revision changes:Links on reddit not always updated, you can contribute too since they are on a wiki.

Revision changes:The scores will be computed according to the following procedure(ideas are welcomed):2017.04.27.1: I deleted the following.- For the start of the tournament I will note the date "D".- I will consider games done within the week (or so) following the noted date "D".- I will consider players having played at least G games in the considered period, with an average score of at least S points (idea from the avg score tournament to speed up the collection of players). (20170317.1)- Then I will prune the collected games to consider games only between those considered players.- Then I will differentiate those games by map.- for every map I consider only those with at least 3 matches. A draw assigns 0.5 points, a loss 0, a win 1. Who has more points on the map gets 3 points, if points are equal, 1.5 both. Who loses 0 points. (20170131.1, 20170131.2)- then I will post the results

20170317.1: I deleted the following.-- I will consider players in top league, listed in the date "D+duration of the tournament in days" with at least N, where N will be stated, games played (other players should mention that they want to be included) and P points. For example N is 400 and P is 1400.

20170131.2. See observation: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=252&start=80#p4534 and viewtopic.php?f=2&t=252&start=80#p4536 .20170131.1: deleted the following-- I assume the best of 3 on every map. If the players played less than 3 games on that map, no point is assigned. Otherwise 1 point to every match winner, 0.5 to both players if draws are collected. Therefore players that play a lot have an advantage against player that play with lower frequency.-- If two players played against each other on one map more than 3 times, the matches to be considered will be picked randomly between those available on that map (in other words: the more often one wins on a map, the higher is the likelihood to win the best of 3)

So to test the code for the next tournament (unless the new changes in 7.x makes the db dump completely different) I collected, thanks to the multimedia history of telegram, the players with 500+ games in league4 on the 02.01.2017 (since I collect in telegram those with more than 1300 points, I have no idea of those with many games but less than 1300 points on that day).

Then I checked all the matches between those players between 01.01.2017 and 10.01.2017 . As explained above, if the matches between the players are less than 3, the match is invalid (that is: the lower the playing frequency, the lower the points. One cannot have everything). If there are more than 3 matches on a map, 3 random results are picked to get the result.

player 1 and player 2 meet on map M at least once. Every time that they meet they contest a prize of 1 game point. A game that ends with a winner assigns one point to the winner, otherwise a draw is 0.5 points for each. This gets accumulated in the score G.

If the sum of points in G is at least 2, the match is considered a "valid tournament match" . A match assigns a prize of 2 points, called S. Who has the highest score in G takes those 2 points, otherwise if player1 and player2 have the same number of points in G, they get one point each.

So checking (thanks to telegram screenshots) how players have played the 7.8 so far.

I would say that the majority of who has 200k+ points in master league already played enough (with an arbitrary threshold of enough), well for example Ritter did not play enough but I'm sure he will recover in the next days. So I consider today, 22-01-2017 (Kanishka, when the times are based on the time of the player, there may be two times for every match, an ugly mess for statistics! One standard time best time), the first day to collect results for the tournament. And I guess I will consider the end in 7 or 10 days.

So, as usual, who plays a lot and plays good will have more chances to collect points compared to the one that play less and play good. Moreover the fights between heavy weights are less common than expected because many games are played against players with low points (this seems the pattern for the moment at least).

Impressivly ritter did not accumulate enough direct fights so far (maybe due to his moving from US to Europe), although he has some days to do it. I am in a good position although there are many that are close. Nullpointer and Tct, even having the potential to win (their score is an indicator), will likely not play enough direct fights (that is likely for nullpointer at least) so won't collect enough points I believe.

I would say that I have to outplay mgblitz, mcompany and kjr if I want to get this. And maybe if I do more frequent updates it is even more interesting how the scores evolve.

Oh man, the pressure of getting close to the top is starting to get to me.

For example, I KNOW that I have some serious flaws in my AIs, especially the sniper, the generic combat AI, and my treatment for Mind games. However, up to this point I just have not cared. I've been looking, instead, for larger issues, new behaviors and solutions for generic problems, not specific ones. I've barely scratched the surface of the new 7.8 options, and frankly have a pile of un-implemented tagging architectures.

My approach has been to make a specific change, the test the he'll out of it by spamming a pile of games, even if the matchmaker cycles me through my weakest existing situations several times.

As I get more successful, I'm tempted to get more rigorous, suit down and do some real analysis, and fix all my problems before re engaging in any combat. I think I'm too lazy for that, but I can certainly sympathise with tct and Nullpointer ; their approach is the more consistent with retaining high performance. Regardless of whether they are at the top temporarily, I really respect their approach to AI Development.

Yes but I devised the tournament exactly to reward those players that play a lot and play good. Nothing bad to those that play good but a little, for them the reward is already the score or the winning ratio.

And I think, I wrote it in another thread ( viewtopic.php?f=7&t=358 ), that the more one is exposed to direct fights over time the harder is to keep the score.

So respectfully I think that players that are able to win many others on the many different maps consistently deserve more recognition. This because due to the score formula and the probability of being defeated in direct fights (since people improve) is way harder to have 100+ points more than the others when one plays often over different days (people improve but not overnight) . So for me the information from this competition is more valuable.

So if you, Kjr, want to get higher score with fewer games, of course you can do it but likely you won't perform in the tournament.

Moreover it is also true the following reasoning: are you superior than everyone else in a certain time frame that spans for several days? If yes then it should not be a problem to just spam challenges and collect victories, you will also dominate this tournament format. Are you not always superior? Then you don't spam and you won't collect so many victories against direct competitors, so you may not dominate this tournament.

Another partial update. I remind you that (a) the score are partial (new direct fights can change the results) and to determine the score on a map randomly picked results between the available direct fights results on that map are used; (b) at the end date I may consider other players [and remove inactive ones] that in the meanwhile reached the required conditions (1400+ points, 400+ games) and therefore change the standings.